American Tobacco Company v. Werckmeister
207 U.S. 284 (1907)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Copyright Act requires notice of copyright to be affixed only to the published copies of a work of art, not to the original piece itself. An exhibition of an artwork at a public gallery that has rules prohibiting copying constitutes a limited publication, which does not divest the owner of their copyright protection.
Facts:
- W. Dendy Sadler, a British artist, painted a work titled 'Chorus.'
- Before any publication, Sadler sold the exclusive right to reproduce and copyright the painting to Emil Werckmeister, an art dealer.
- The original painting, which did not bear a copyright notice, was subsequently exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in London.
- The Royal Academy's rules prohibited visitors from copying any works on display, and officers were present to enforce this rule.
- Werckmeister later published and sold photogravure reproductions of the painting, with each copy bearing a valid copyright notice.
- The American Tobacco Company reproduced the image from the painting on over a million of its packages without Werckmeister's authorization.
Procedural Posture:
- Emil Werckmeister sued The American Tobacco Company in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York (a federal trial court) for copyright infringement.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Werckmeister.
- American Tobacco Co. (plaintiff in error/appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- American Tobacco Co. then brought the case to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error for final review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Copyright Act require a copyright notice to be inscribed on an original painting, as opposed to only on the published copies, to maintain a valid copyright against infringement?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Day
No, the Copyright Act does not require a notice to be placed on the original painting. The statutory requirement for a copyright notice applies to the published copies of a work that are circulated to the public, not the unique original. The court reasoned that the purpose of the notice requirement is to inform purchasers of the copies about the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The owner of the original artwork does not need such a notice. Reading the statute's ambiguous language in light of its legislative purpose—to protect the intangible right of reproduction—clarifies that the inscription requirement attaches to the copies intended for public dissemination. Furthermore, the exhibition at the Royal Academy was a 'limited publication' because it was subject to restrictions that precluded the public from copying the work, and therefore did not constitute a forfeiture of the copyright.
Analysis:
This decision established a foundational principle in copyright law by distinguishing between the original work and its published copies for notice purposes, thereby protecting artists who display their originals. It solidified the doctrine of 'limited publication,' creating a crucial safe harbor for creators to exhibit their work without dedicating it to the public domain. The case also affirmed that copyright is an incorporeal right separate from the physical object, reinforcing the ability of an author to assign the right to obtain a copyright independently of the sale of the artwork itself, which became a cornerstone of copyright transactions.
